Justice Breyer’s “Outrageous” Statement

Justice Breyer’s suggestion yesterday at a congressional budget hearing that the Supreme Court will likely wind up passing judgment on various aspects of the Obamacare law should surprise no one. The Court’s shrinking docket has been a topic of Congressional inquiry for years, and it is not unusual for lawmakers to ponder whether Congress should require the High Court to take more cases or at least certain important ones (as it sometimes does).

It is also true that the recent health care “reform” violates many provisions of the Constitution. Any legal scholar worth his salt should predict that the Supreme Court will be called on to at least interpret the law, if not strike down major portions of it. It would have been shocking if Breyer had said challenges to Obamacare were not likely to be worthy of the High Court’s review.

In any event, one has to wonder how the liberal press might have played Breyer’s statement, had it been made by the other witness at today’s hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas. For example, Slate might have reported it something like this:

As rage-filled birthers, racists and other assorted Tea Party activists gathered in Washington, ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas served up the red meat they craved by predicting that the Supreme Court would have the final word on whether President Obama’s historic health reforms will be allowed to bring healing and peace of mind to millions.

The thinly veiled threat to undo Obama’s transformative achievement–one pursued by leaders of both parties since Teddy Roosevelt occupied the Oval Office–doubtless roused the spirits of Tea Partiers and their ilk, who insist on labeling the President’s middle-of-the-road solution as “socialist.”

A spokesman for the Alliance of Liberal Activists called Thomas’s statement “a shocking departure from the traditions of the Court.” It was, he noted, “just one more proof of the right-wing politicization of the Court, which instinctively favors corporations over amputees like Lilly Ledbetter.” The ALA called upon Thomas to recuse himself from any decisions on the landmark health reform package.

Professor I. Drone, a leading authority on constitutional law at the East Coast College of Law, concurred that Thomas’s outburst creates “at the very least, an appearance of impropriety.”

“It is unseemly and wholly unprecedented for a sitting justice to predict that the Court will rule favorably on future petitions for certiorari long before the lower courts have even made preliminary rulings,” Drone noted.

The White House had no immediate public comment on Thomas’s behavior but Robert Gibbs promised to report back on the White House’s view. However, Senate Judiciary Committee staffers said Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), is “seriously considering” separate hearings to investigate the right-wing leanings of the Court.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Todd Gaziano is executive director of Pacific Legal Foundation’s D.C. Center and senior fellow in Constitutional Law. For many years previous, he was the founding director of the Legal Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Trending

Join The Discussion

I think by now every American can see through any Liberal spin being offered on just about any topic coming out of D.C. Liberals have all but 'jumped the shark' in the way of half truths and omissions…it's a game that can only be played just so long before even the most adamant Liberal has to admit the ugly truth. Did you get all that Mr.Spokesman with the Alliance of Liberal Activists?

That is exactly what I would expect any Supreme Court justice to say … the truth … that many Constitutional issues about this law will surely be brought to the Court, and must be addressed when they are.

When someone uses the talking point of "the liberal press" it is obvious that their arguments are biased, and actually go further that those that they complain about. There is so much misinformation of what the constitution says and doesn't. However, Breyer is categorically wrong about his assertion and just just pandering to a small faction of his supports who are uniformed about the issues of the constitution.

I’m probably right there with you politically, but I don’t get this. Basically you wrote an entire article as if you were Slate writing about Thomas. What’s the point? Why don’t you show us how Slate covered Breyer’s actual statement? This is every bit as bad as the people who say everyone in the Tea Party is racist. You do not, nor could you possibly know what Slate would actually report in your scenario. This just seems like a waste of a time, as over half your entry is you putting words in someone else’s mouth.

I think we all know what the liberal media would say in reaction to statements from any conservative. I don't think it's helpful to speculate on what they might say in reaction to any potential comments of Justice Thomas.

I didn't realize we are blessed by the opinions of "another bird" who is asured to

be a "constitutional scholar"! Tell us all "another bird", have you ever read any part of our Constitution? If you in fact did, you would underatand that ObamaCare must be settled before the Supreme Court because many parts are absolutely

I am amused and saddened by the "invincible ignorance" of the Constitution some of the "progressives" profess. Specifically, on Sunday (yesterday) a man on the left said that he believes the Constitution is a flawed document because of the provisions in it to count slaves as only 3/5 of a person. It appears he believes the Constitution is a racist document. That man fails is to understand that provision was adopted so that the Southern states would not have an overwhelming majority in the early House of Representatives.

I expect that whomever Mr. Obama nominates to the Supreme Court is a scholar who loves the Constitution and respects its contents and understands that it represents our baseline for measuring individual freedom.

I expect that whomever Mr. Obama nominates recognizes how flawed the Healthcare legislation is because it attacks my rights as an individual to manage my own affairs. What can be a better example of an individual freedom as the freedom to select (or not select) health insurance? Insurance is a product.. it is not a right..

With the comments of Professor I. Drone, I was delighted to see how easy it is to produce what Liberals would consider a “reasonable and fair-minded” article that might appear in, say the NYT or WAPO. Yet, they still don’t seem to understand that at least half the Country is now “on to them”!

If you can read, how can there be any misinterpretation of the Constitution. You also have to READ the Federalist papers to understand what the framers intended. You can get a copy of The Constitution from the Heritage Foundation.
Get out a dictionary and READ it.

Tell senator Laheay, that the founding fathers intended that there be three branchs of government so as to prevent one or two branchs of government dominnate their role in power. Also to limit one branch,s power in certain political policies,and protection of people from the executive and congressional leaders whose decisions would hurt the nation lead to lost of freedom from the government.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.